I did not mean "turning non-contributing members of society into wildly successful members'"; that'd be easy because a large portion of wildly successful people have used entitlements of some kind. Two easy examples who are open about it are Howard Schultz and JK Rowling.
I meant statistically successful at lifting large numbers of people out of poverty, adding them to the tax-paying workforce, and doing so in a cost-effective way. The example I have in mind is the Earned Income Tax Credit. It is an entitlement program specifically targeted at bringing people out of poverty. It costs $70 billion/year, but generates between $84-$140 billion a year in economic activity via added workforce and earned/spent wages. I feel like it's a very effective use of tax proceeds. Would you support policies like that?
Honestly, I'll have to learn more about that "entitlement" to make a judgement. Admittedly, I'm skeptical based on the people I do know who are utilizing entitlement programs. There are so many give away programs out there that don't require those receiving from looking for work. They're happy just living off the efforts of others. All of which make for voters who don't want the giveaway programs going away.
Helping hands are one thing, continuous hand outs are a totally different thing.
Originally posted by NewDustin: What is the natural upper limit representing a fixed cap for temperatures? What is the lower limit? How is the underlying function being modified to account for the changing limits -given that's kind of the whole point of measuring climate change? Without addressing those questions it does not seem to apply.
Good question. What do the Global Warming scammers say they are ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: If you'll go ahead and click back to the page previous to this one, you'll see that this turned into a Global Warming conversation at the near-insistence of Cliff (not that I'm complaining about his doing so). I even initially refused to engage in it.
Would you like a ride in the Way-Back Machine ? All I mentioned was that Trump achieved energy independence. Something every politician since 1973 promised but never delivered. I mentioned it because Trump never promised it but achieved it.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I don't think energy independence is in fossil fuels; I think it appeases people in the short term. It becomes a cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face moment when we refuse to adapt beyond them because we currently rely on them. We already drill more than any other country, and while I DO think the engineering of it is cool as hell the marginal benefit of more is not what he is promising.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Our fear of nuclear power makes us a fossil fuel country, which is legitimately insane from any environmental perspective, ...
The greenie tree huggers make nuclear power construction not possible. One of their concerns I agree with. Nuclear waste disposal.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Shutting down Yucca Mountain is one of the dumbest thing we have ever done.
Why ? Serious question. You caused me to read up on it. Again, the greenie treehuggers. Obama did it.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Then you're going to love reading about how ...
No, I won't. I do not listen to advocates of Global Warming who lied and lied to me before.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Again, though, we find ourselves agreeing. The depth of analysis that exists would not be able to exist without considerable, extensive data sets.
Okay, you want data sets. They exist on both sides of the opinion. I will oblige you, but not now.
Originally posted by blackrams: Honestly, I'll have to learn more about that "entitlement" to make a judgement. Admittedly, I'm skeptical based on the people I do know who are utilizing entitlement programs. There are so many give away programs out there that don't require those receiving from looking for work. They're happy just living off the efforts of others. All of which make for voters who don't want the giveaway programs going away.
Helping hands are one thing, continuous hand outs are a totally different thing.
Rams
The Wiki is pretty good on it. It fits all definitions of an entitlement, and is actually the third largest social welfare program. It's significantly larger than unemployment insurance, or really any other entitlement outside of SNAP and Medicaid.
In my opinion, there will always be people that find ways to freeload. Focusing on eliminating all freeloaders is a pointless endeavor, and we'd be better served supporting programs' outcomes and cost/benefit analysis. If a program is overwhelmed by abuse, it will absolutely show when looking at it. If we focus funding on those that are successful/fruitful we will address freeloaders as an effect of that.
The Wiki is pretty good on it. It fits all definitions of an entitlement, and is actually the third largest social welfare program. It's significantly larger than unemployment insurance, or really any other entitlement outside of SNAP and Medicaid.
You really need to mention the Government (Section 8) housing costs.
Unemployment insurance, an entitlement program ? No no.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: In my opinion, there will always be people that find ways to freeload. Focusing on eliminating all freeloaders is a pointless endeavor, and we'd be better served supporting programs' outcomes and cost/benefit analysis. If a program is overwhelmed by abuse, it will absolutely show when looking at it. If we focus funding on those that are successful/fruitful we will address freeloaders as an effect of that.
Geesh. Eliminating all freeloaders is a pointless endeavor ? Man will never land on the Moon. What do multi generational freebies encourage ?
Originally posted by cliffw: Geesh. Eliminating all freeloaders is a pointless endeavor ? Man will never land on the Moon. What do multi generational freebies encourage ?
That depends. In the case of the EITC, enormous economic and social gains.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
You really need to mention the Government (Section 8) housing costs.
Unemployment insurance, an entitlement program ? No no.
Ok. Section 8, which costs ~$25 billion/year, is roughly 1/3 of what the EITC costs.
Unemployment insurance is absolutely an entitlement, and a social welfare program. I'm not saying that to be pejorative, that's just what it is.
Unemployment insurance is absolutely an entitlement, and a social welfare program. I'm not saying that to be pejorative, that's just what it is.
I guess it's another perspective issue on whether or not Unemployment Insurance is an entitlement/social welfare program.
I consider Unemployment Insurance no different that any other insurance I pay for (although I don't have a choice in whether or not I pay for that policy). We pay for that insurance, it's not a free money program. Those pulling their share of the load are getting some return/coverage for that insurance. Versus programs that simply provide for those who aren't or haven't done so.
Very much the same as Social Security, we pay into it (willingly or not) so that there will be some financial security when it's needed at some point in our lives. IOWs, both are something we pay into/for.
Originally posted by blackrams: I guess it's another perspective issue on whether or not Unemployment Insurance is an entitlement/social welfare program.
I consider Unemployment Insurance no different that any other insurance I pay for (although I don't have a choice in whether or not I pay for that policy).
NewDustin is generalizing, but unemployment (not called insurance in most states) is different, state to state. In some states it's outright welfare, in other states it's more like insurance.
The only one I'm most familiar with was the state of Florida... I had to take it when I was laid off after the .COM bust. The unemployment benefits are paid directly by a percentage of your previous company(s)... up to 5 years if I remember correctly. Meaning if I worked for a company for 3 years, they would pay like 65% of it, and then the other company I worked for two years would pay 35% of it. It has probably changed quite a bit, but it was more or less like that back in the late 1990s.
I was on it for a little under 2 months. It's paid weekly, and there's a bunch of requirements that go with it. You have to actively look for jobs (at least 4 per week), and submit your job applications to the state for verification. They also have you watch a video (in person at the local career center... at least at the time), and do some other things like take an assessment test, etc. Most of the people who are there are relatively unskilled people, or younger people (which I was... I think I was like 20 years sold). You don't really see too many middle-class people since they generally saved... at least that was what I had witnessed there.
The thing I thought was odd (though I understand it), was that if you get a part time job to supplement your income (like Mc.Donalds), they will deduct your paycheck from the total amount you would have otherwise gotten from unemployment. At the time it was a maximum of $275 a week. So if I was making $100 from Mc.Donalds that week (just as an example), they'd only give you $175.
While I don't disagree with that, the only problem I see is that for lower-income people, it disincentivizes you to find a job. I was looking for computer programming jobs... but lower income people would generally be trying to get service jobs... so it kind of kept people on unemployment (Florida has no time limits, mostly because the state has so much money).
There were other situations where the Federal government would push money out to the states for unemployment... and then the rules would change temporarily (during different points)... but that's kind of what it was. It took almost a month to get qualified for it... which was rough, because as an irresponsible 20 year old, I had nothing saved because I was an idiot. It helped me pay my rent once, and then I found another job (through my previous work colleagues) before I needed to go a full two months. You of course also have to claim it on your taxes, and you got a statement in the mail for it.
Generally, not so bad... but it depends on the state for how it's paid, who pays it, etc.
NewDustin is generalizing, but unemployment (not called insurance in most states) is different, state to state. In some states it's outright welfare, in other states it's more like insurance.
This is fair. I am generalizing across the states and funding is not guaranteed in many of them (ie being limited to the tax proceeds from UI contributions), making their unemployment insurance hard to classify fully as 'entitlement' programs. Even in those cases...it's kind of a nitpicky distinction and they still operate nearly identically to other entitlements.
This is fair. I am generalizing across the states and funding is not guaranteed in many of them (ie being limited to the tax proceeds from UI contributions), making their unemployment insurance hard to classify fully as 'entitlement' programs. Even in those cases...it's kind of a nitpicky distinction and they still operate nearly identically to other entitlements.
Respectfully, they do not. Most states require you to have worked a period of time in order to even be eligible for it. MOST welfare programs, if you qualify for one, you qualify for almost all of them. Or like for example, you qualify for Section 8, then you qualify for literally everything... TANF, Obama Phones, etc. But unemployment is a whole separate program, which is run totally separate in nearly all states by an entirely different department under the states.
Respectfully, they do not. Most states require you to have worked a period of time in order to even be eligible for it. MOST welfare programs, if you qualify for one, you qualify for almost all of them. Or like for example, you qualify for Section 8, then you qualify for literally everything... TANF, Obama Phones, etc. But unemployment is a whole separate program, which is run totally separate in nearly all states by an entirely different department under the states.
That is a misrepresentation, and you've confused "entitlement programs" with "welfare programs," which are different things (not all welfare benefits are entitlements). All unemployment insurance benefits are welfare (they're actually one of two original welfare programs!), but they don't all meet the strict definition of an entitlement.
I get that a lot of people have used unemployment insurance -I'm extremely lucky to have never needed it myself- and that a lot of those same people are very against "welfare" programs. That causes cognitive dissonance, and the need to explain it away: "The only good welfare program is the one I needed, and we aren't going to call that one 'welfare.'" I don't think there's any shame in relying on a welfare program (I personally used FMLA for both of my children's births), but I get why someone adamantly against them would need coping mechanisms after having to rely on them.
So again -if we're using words the way they are defined- unemployment insurance is welfare that doesn't quite meet the definition of "entitlement."
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-12-2025).]
Originally posted by blackrams: I consider Unemployment Insurance no different that any other insurance I pay for (although I don't have a choice in whether or not I pay for that policy).
You can consider it whatever you like -a can of tomato soup maybe?- but it is, by definition, a government subsidized welfare program; it is not a matter of opinion or individual consideration.
Very much the same as Social Security, we pay into it (willingly or not) so that there will be some financial security when it's needed at some point in our lives. IOWs, both are something we pay into/for.
Rams
You actually pay into both of the original social welfare programs (unemployment insurance and social security insurance). They are still welfare, and that's how a lot of welfare works
That is a misrepresentation, and you've confused "entitlement programs" with "welfare programs," which are different things (not all welfare benefits are entitlements). All unemployment insurance benefits are welfare (they're actually one of two original welfare programs!), but they don't all meet the strict definition of an entitlement.
I get that a lot of people have used unemployment insurance -I'm extremely lucky to have never needed it myself- and that a lot of those same people are very against "welfare" programs. That causes cognitive dissonance, and the need to explain it away: "The only good welfare program is the one I needed, and we aren't going to call that one 'welfare.'" I don't think there's any shame in relying on a welfare program (I personally used FMLA for both of my children's births), but I get why someone adamantly against them would need coping mechanisms after having to rely on them.
So again -if we're using words the way they are defined- unemployment insurance is welfare that doesn't quite meet the definition of "entitlement."
Sigh...
Democrats consider welfare to be entitlements... I was just trying to use your language. I'm not saying unemployment insurance is welfare, but I assumed you are linking them as you talked about them as entitlements... and again, most Democrats consider welfare to be things that people are owed.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:
You actually pay into both of the original social welfare programs (unemployment insurance and social security insurance). They are still welfare, and that's how a lot of welfare works
Stop saying this... you don't "pay into unemployment insurance" except for in a few states. In the state of Florida, there is nothing on my paycheck that pays into unemployment insurance. It's paid for by the previous company(s) you worked for... and it's part of state payroll taxes. THE COMPANY pays into it... not me. Many states are like this. In some states, the employee actually has a line item on their pay statement, while others have it come out of the general fund from the state from all taxpayers (which is like welfare).
Stop making definitives on something that's different state by state. That's like saying Abortion is Outlawed in the United States... which is totally not true... because in California you can practically kill the baby immediately after it comes out, where as in some states, it is banned.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-12-2025).]
Stop saying this... you don't "pay into unemployment insurance" except for in a few states. In the state of Florida, there is nothing on my paycheck that pays into unemployment insurance. It's paid for by the previous company(s) you worked for... and it's part of state payroll taxes. THE COMPANY pays into it... not me. Many states are like this. In some states, the employee actually has a line item on their pay statement, while others have it come out of the general fund from the state from all taxpayers (which is like welfare).
Stop making definitives on something that's different state by state. That's like saying Abortion is Outlawed in the United States... which is totally not true... because in California you can practically kill the baby immediately after it comes out, where as in some states, it is banned.
I was referring specifically to the original two social welfare programs, which were federal, but again this is a fair point: Each state administers this welfare program differently.
I was referring specifically to the original two social welfare programs, which were federal, but again this is a fair point: Each state administers this welfare program differently.
Originally posted by NewDustin: You can consider it whatever you like -a can of tomato soup maybe?- but it is, by definition, a government subsidized welfare program; it is not a matter of opinion or individual consideration.
No !
Unemployment Insurance is a government mandated program. The government does not pay one single dime.
I did not mean "turning non-contributing members of society into wildly successful members'"; that'd be easy because a large portion of wildly successful people have used entitlements of some kind. Two easy examples who are open about it are Howard Schultz and JK Rowling.
I meant statistically successful at lifting large numbers of people out of poverty, adding them to the tax-paying workforce, and doing so in a cost-effective way. The example I have in mind is the Earned Income Tax Credit. It is an entitlement program specifically targeted at bringing people out of poverty. It costs $70 billion/year, but generates between $84-$140 billion a year in economic activity via added workforce and earned/spent wages. I feel like it's a very effective use of tax proceeds. Would you support policies like that?
Your examples are "statistically" miniscule. Almost invisible compared to the number who draw from Entitlement programs. Just not buying it. There's always an exception to any rule. Statistically, none of the Entitlement Programs do much to promote successful and productive lives.
Rams Edited to correct what spell check did that I didn't catch.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-15-2025).]
